If the predictions are still correct the world's population is supposed to level off by 2050 even in the developing world. Who came up with this idea that the population in the US will more than triple in 90 years?

What's even crazier is that the population is expected to take off after 2050 which means that we would be adding about 100 million each decade. There's no way we can accomodate that kind of growth in a short amount of time. But as I posted earlier on this thread, I might live to 2050, so I really won't care what the population is by the year 2100.

Considering the low lying areas along the coast will be both flooded and bombarded with augmented hurricane activity, and the southwest running out of fresh water, there will be a large migration back to regions where most people lived a century ago.

Floating cities near the coasts may become feasible, as well as arcologies. The hollowed out urban centers will need to redensified. Job opportunities in the declining smaller cities and small towns (especially in the rust belt) would provide a setting for those wanting a more suburban lifestyle while preserving open space in the larger metro areas. The great lakes region will see a rebirth as the climate becomes more tropical and a reliable fresh water supply is needed.

Considering the low lying areas along the coast will be both flooded and bombarded with augmented hurricane activity, and the southwest running out of fresh water, there will be a large migration back to regions where most people lived a century ago.

Floating cities near the coasts may become feasible, as well as arcologies. The hollowed out urban centers will need to redensified. Job opportunities in the declining smaller cities and small towns (especially in the rust belt) would provide a setting for those wanting a more suburban lifestyle while preserving open space in the larger metro areas. The great lakes region will see a rebirth as the climate becomes more tropical and a reliable fresh water supply is needed.

Northeast? I don't think so. Not only is it too overpopulated, but rising sea levels will make it impossible anyway.

I mostly agree with WeatherGuru; I predict most influxes of people will occur in Midwest, Northwest, Southeast and the Southwest, including California. I say that because i'm predicting that people will be supporting more Desalinization Plants and Water Recycling in the near future as Mountain water resources become increasingly scarce.

By 2020: (these are just guesses on city pop.)

New York City: 9 Million

Los Angeles: 6.5 Million

Chicago: 4.0 Million

Atlanta, Phoenix and Las Vegas: 3 Million

The way things are going Los Angeles will be lucky to even get to 5 Million by then..

If the predictions are still correct the world's population is supposed to level off by 2050 even in the developing world. Who came up with this idea that the population in the US will more than triple in 90 years?

It already tripled in the last 90 years, this is probably why people think it might do it again.

This sort of statement about sky-high population projections comes up from time to time and basically it's all at odds with statistical trends.

The developed world is losing people. The developing world is seeing major drops in fertility rates and in some cases while the population is still rising decline is inevitable over a longer period.

Africa is the only continent where the majority of the nations are predicted to see fertility rates remain stable and high. However, Africa is also finally starting to stabilize politically and social and education systems are in their nascent stages. It's a reasonable bet that while Africa will see a major rise in population, growth will slow there too.

As for the U.S. hitting a billion...well, unless there are a few huge changes between now and then, it's not going to happen. It's obviously possible but there are only two ways it can happen.

1- Immigration. There's just no way that the U.S. government is going to increase immigration to levels so high that the economy is destroyed. The reach a billion under present economic realities, there's no way to do it without catastrophically damaging the economy. That's suicide and who's going to vote for that ?

2- Birth rates. Well, while they may rise dramatically, they'd have to do so to such a degree that something else radical would have to be at play. Like Mormon's suddenly having a hundred babies each and all of them surviving and reproducing at the same rate. Without a collapse of the education system there's pretty much no way that the birth rates will rise that much. In fact, the biggest predictor of population growth is education. Ignorant people tend to have more children because without an education the children are meant to act as their retirement savings plan.

Obviously religion plays a role but again, education affects the religious too. Even if they believe in having hordes of children as part of their religious practices they know that they won't be able to keep them without the money to support the kids. No education plus the reality of modern economics rules that out too.

What many don't realize is that China's population will have aged considerably by that time; so their economy will likely collapse, sending extra amounts of people to the United States. This is the same thing that will happen in the United States in the next decade.

I just watched a documentary about this...I think it was called the Demographic Winter. If that is not the name of the actual documentary, it is at least the term that economists and sociologists use to refer to what you are talking about. It is very odd to explain this to people because the population is rising, but that is just because people are living longer. There is almost no developed nation who has a population which is reproducing at replacement rates.

There is a lot of talk about how this is also the cause of our declining crime rates. The book Freakonomics talks about his theory about legalized abortion and easy access to birth control being a leading factor in the crime decrease. That seems like too simple of an answer to me, I think there are more factors to consider. But I digress. It is just that those crime declining stats were put in an article talking about the rise of single elderly living and I made the connection. The article mentions some short term repercussions that will affect and are affecting our lives. And this is before the collapse of two of the largest world economies. With the elderly living and people not reproducing, there is no one to take care of them and that puts them at great risk. You can read the whole article here: http://united-locksmith.net/blog/liv...-single-living

I really think that the pertinent information is in the Statistics section and "The Rise of Living Alone" section. The short term effects of this whole population crisis is a lot of unhappiness and even death. Then we will finally get the economic collapse, but it will be a rough ride for individuals before we get there.